I don't like the word creationist because (in my view, at least) it has a whole bunch of negative connotations. It kind of implies that there's a two-party system in which members subscribe to one of the two available doctrines because, all things being equal, they like it better than the other. I don't like the phrase intelligent design either. It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

The limits of man's imagination are pretty obvious. Each new idea consists of building blocks, elementary parts, components of the conceptual model. We can't visualize anything from scratch, the way Our Lord did when He created us.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years. That's not the point, though. I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

I titled it The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths. Find it on YouTube; here's the link:

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that. Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

I don't like the word creationist because (in my view, at least) it has a whole bunch of negative connotations. It kind of implies that there's a two-party system in which members subscribe to one of the two available doctrines because, all things being equal, they like it better than the other. I don't like the phrase intelligent design either. It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

The limits of man's imagination are pretty obvious. Each new idea consists of building blocks, elementary parts, components of the conceptual model. We can't visualize anything from scratch, the way Our Lord did when He created us.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years. That's not the point, though. I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

You won't get anywhere with your opinion about evolution's empirical data. The fact is, we have enough of it to create and sustain a thoroughly viable theory. We don't need to have been there millions of years ago. We see evolution in action during the present. So it really IS a theory after all.

I titled it The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths. Find it on YouTube; here's the link:

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that. Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

Please define "unmistakably Christian."

Well, there it is, as Emperor Hadrian used to say.

Are you going to stick around when others start responding here?

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.

I don't like the word creationist because (in my view, at least) it has a whole bunch of negative connotations.

Oh, yes, it has many negative connotations, largely because many creationist writers, sites, and apologists seem to have a hard time accepting reality and logic. When they begin to repetitively deny things that any reasonable person must know is true, it really hurts their credibility. If you stick around you'll see what I mean.

It kind of implies that there's a two-party system in which members subscribe to one of the two available doctrines because, all things being equal, they like it better than the other.

Well, they do subscribe to a doctrine because they like it better. However, the 'one of two doctrines' idea is crucially flawed. There are Hindu creationists who believe that Brahma created the world and people billions of years ago. There are those who believe extraterrestrials created human life as some kind of experiment or project.

I don't like the phrase intelligent design either. It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

If you look into the evidence, you will quickly see that that was what ID was designed to look like, so that its proponents could get around US constitutional law regarding the government promoting a particular religion. The reason they can't say the Designer was the God of the Bible is that that would immediately trigger a constitutional violation as already determined in the US. The whole ID thing is an attempt to disguise ID as science (or more accurately, pseudo-science) in order to sneak it into the schoos to subvert the teaching of science.

Sorry, but you've got some things wrong here, and others need to be established before you can use them as foundations for your position.

1. There is no 'our' Lord. People here include Christians (who do not all agree on the nature of their God), agnostics (who do not believe God's existence has been established, and who do not have a God), Atheists (Who do not believe in the existence of Gods), Buddhists, Native Americans, and Pagans, some of whom have many Gods, none of them in common with yours. Some of those will allow that it is possible that your God exists, others may hold that your God's existence is doubtful at best, and impossible as you define your God.

2. There is no evidence that there ever was a 'creation'.

3. If there was a 'creation' and if there were 'creators' there is no evidence that such Creators were supernatural.

4. If there were supernatural creators, there is no evidence they were Gods, or that they had anything in common with your conception of your God. (I'm giving you the abbreviated version, there are several other things you must show in order to justify the assumption that there is a Creator and that it is related to your concept of God.)

5. Even if there was a creation of the universe there is no evidence that anything past the first instant was messed around with by some sort of entities or forces, let alone that life was created by some sort of intervention.

6. Even if some extraterresstrial or supernatural entities were involved in starting life, there is no evidence of later intervention, nor of any special status for human beings.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years.

I'm afraid you are missing quite a bit in your appreciation of science, it's nature and methods. Both the Big Bang theory and the ToE are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the Big Bang, but's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in, yes. Weak spots? No.

You might want to look a bit at modern cosmology, quantum physics, biology, population genetics, anthropology, geology and archaeology. I recommend univeristy textbooks from the last ten years or so, or good popular accounts (for cosmology and quantum physics) if you can't handle the math, also from the last ten years. The best science, of course, is in the peer reviewed journals, but that may require a more specialized background to understand.

It seems to imply that even though most of the proponents of the concept figure there's got to be "some sort of higher power out there" who's responsible for creating, or at least kicking off, everything you see around you, we've outgrown the biblical account thanks to the development through the dark and taxing centuries of scientific and philosophical thought.

I'd hardly call the developments of science as "dark". Since the Age of Reason religion in the West has been in retreat.

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories.

They are both first rate theories each supported by mountains of evidence. Neither is in the least bit controversial and the only people who have any objections to them are people in the thrall of religions with beliefs that are at odds with reality and reason.

in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years.

Evolution is observed and the theory of evolution describes what we see in ALL the evidence. The Big Bang was proposed before the evidence came in and like the theory of evolution, it is a well established, solid and uncontroversial scientific theory.

I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that. Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

The best writers usually aren't Christians and certainly don't write in a way that proselytises.

You won't get anywhere with your opinion about evolution's empirical data. The fact is, we have enough of it to create and sustain a thoroughly viable theory. We don't need to have been there millions of years ago. We see evolution in action during the present. So it really IS a theory after all.

A few million people saying so half-heartedly does not make it so. Saying "the fact is" does not make "it" a fact.

The scientific method clearly implies that we absolutely HAVE TO have been there in order to run some tests and get some results which would then be viewed (or not) as empirical data. Yes, there are loopholes, but that's just uncouth.

No, we don't see evolution in action. To see it in action, our lifespan would have to be significantly greater than it is today.

Welcome to the board. As you see we're kinda a tough crowd, so you have to stay on your toes if you want to continue here. To get a feel, read some of the established threads and see if this id really where you wanna be.

By the way I'm a theistic evolutionist. But as was pointed out there are all kinds of people on the board.

Now I'll complain a little. We try to use the technical usage of the word myth here, which is:

In the broadest sense a myth can refer to any traditional story, although folklorists prefer to use the term to refer to a sacred narrative that validates a religious system. Normally, myth transpires outside or before human time.

A myth is a story that describes humankind's relationship with God.

It seems that you're using it in the common usage as something that is not true. Don't do that here, it will only confuse us.

As a story teller you should know this!!

All this can be brought back to Genesis 1. YE Creationists insist that Genesis 1 is historical and scientifically accurate.

Other Christians would say it is a wonderful story about how God created everything for good purpose and cares for us. That would be a myth.

And both YECists and other Christians would say that Genesis 1 is true, but for VERY different reasons.

If you look into the evidence, you will quickly see that that was what ID was designed to look like, so that its proponents could get around US constitutional law regarding the government promoting a particular religion. The reason they can't say the Designer was the God of the Bible is that that would immediately trigger a constitutional violation as already determined in the US. The whole ID thing is an attempt to disguise ID as science (or more accurately, pseudo-science) in order to sneak it into the schoos to subvert the teaching of science.

I'm aware of that. It is equally unconstitutional to preach Evolution in school without offering alternatives. Evolutionists themselves call it a THEORY, remember? Which would, or should, imply that "this is how things may or may not be," not "this is how things ARE." Ask your kid.

1. There is no 'our' Lord. People here include Christians (who do not all agree on the nature of their God), agnostics (who do not believe God's existence has been established, and who do not have a God), Atheists (Who do not believe in the existence of Gods), Buddhists, Native Americans, and Pagans, some of whom have many Gods, none of them in common with yours. Some of those will allow that it is possible that your God exists, others may hold that your God's existence is doubtful at best, and impossible as you define your God.

Didn't know that being a Native American is actually a religion. Live and learn.

2. There is no evidence that there ever was a 'creation'.

There is some. But, again, I don't think that the five senses we have allow us to view and/or comprehend all the necessary evidence; nor do I think that evidence is Divine, Infallible, and All-Powerful. Evidence (and proof) are DEVICES we use to fit new information into our outlooks, which are (the outlooks) limited by - yes, our five senses. Maybe if we had twenty senses, or a million senses, we wouldn't need evidence, or use something else instead.

3. If there was a 'creation' and if there were 'creators' there is no evidence that such Creators were supernatural.

The cult of evidence shouldn't apply to things universal. Evidence works well in engineering, in criminal law, in descriptive geometry, in quantum mechanics, etc. It ceases working once we get beyond the realm of our five senses. To think, as Democrites and Galileo did, that the Universe is so limited that our five senses are sufficient to grasp it all, is naive, I think.

4. If there were supernatural creators, there is no evidence they were Gods, or that they had anything in common with your conception of your God. (I'm giving you the abbreviated version, there are several other things you must show in order to justify the assumption that there is a Creator and that it is related to your concept of God.)

You can say that about anything. Neither you nor I have ever got our hands on any empirical evidence that the Wright Brothers invented the airplane. Man is a creature of belief.

5. Even if there was a creation of the universe there is no evidence that anything past the first instant was messed around with by some sort of entities or forces, let alone that life was created by some sort of intervention.

Oh, it was messed around with, all right. That much is ... well ... evident. And the Biblical accond is, in fact, pretty comprehensive, AND it all checks out. Sort of. This, too, is an abbreviated version.

6. Even if some extraterresstrial or supernatural entities were involved in starting life, there is no evidence of later intervention, nor of any special status for human beings.

About the special status. How can you tell whether a person is sane or insane? Very roughly: an average sane person can build a house (giving the proper tools and materials); an insane person can't. You know as well as I that humans are special. I don't remember meeting any raccoons believing and God nor having debates on the Web about it.

I'm afraid you are missing quite a bit in your appreciation of science, it's nature and methods.

Probably goes for both of us.

Both the Big Bang theory and the ToE are very well established major theories,

As the geocentric and heliocentric models before them, for much, much longer periods.

with enormous levels of verification and evidence.

That is simply not true.

Details to be filled in, yes. Weak spots? No.

You're very certain of your facts. Religion?

I recommend univeristy textbooks from the last ten years or so

I ... hmm ... counter-recommend ... hmm ... let's see ... Copernicus! There you go. Ten years versus a few centuresi. Also verified and evidenced.

I actually recommend the same university textbooks to you. Really, I do. Some of them are downright comical, actually. Others are boring in the sense that their authors have no idea what they're talking about. The vast majority of them can't grasp the basics of Relativity; some of their methods of working around it have me in stitches each and every time.